Maof - Friends Like This

It is impossible to think of American Jews without recalling their most tragic heroes, the Rosenbergs. If you need proof that a regular Joe Schmoe can sometimes change history, this poor couple has provides a terribly convincing example. The entire second half of the last century was defined by the Cold War and the arms race between the superpowers. No one — no ideologue, no president, no party chairman, no general on either side of the great divide — could claim more personal credit for that than Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, the two most boring looking villains in history. The prosecution was ruthless and didn't always follow every rule in the book. That gave American liberals an excuse to stubbornly, for decades on end, claim their innocence. They still do it today, although not as loudly as they used to before the KGB exhumed from its archives and made public the proof of the Rosenbergs' treason.

I have no doubt that the Rosenbergs had the noblest intentions when they passed America's most precious secrets to America's worst enemy of the time. Or, at least, they sincerely believed their intentions were noble. However, why should I be concerned with their intentions when their actual deeds harmed my country, no matter what considerations prompted their crime?

Let me ask all American Jews a simple question. In the entire history of Diaspora, with the single possible exception of pre-Nazi Germany, Jews have never been as safe, as comfortable, and as integrated as they are in the United States today. Why would we want to harm this wonderful country?

Are we suicidal?

No, we are Jews; Judaism, unlike Islam, forbids suicide. But most of us are also liberal.

Just like the Picasso rendering of the Rosenbergs, although not completely unrealistic, is unquestionably prettier than their photographs, liberal views are so much prettier than my own. For example, I know a liberal who believes that even the worst criminals can be completely rehabilitated by gentle means of bonding with animals. Unlike her, I am a cynical believer in the death penalty. As to the bonding with animals, I don't just believe; I know that it is no more capable of rehabilitating a criminal than it can cure, let's say, multiple sclerosis, although a pet can definitely make the sufferer feel better for a while. But why would I want a criminal to feel better? And yet, I have no illusions: the image of a smiling Timothy McVeigh cuddling with a Chihuahua would be more attractive than the image of Timothy McVeigh strapped to the gurney, staring at the ceiling with eyes that can no longer see. I am afraid however that the Chihuahua solution might inspire copycats: kill a few hundred people; spend some time at a petting zoo; buy some fertilizer... I'm glad they killed him. I will even confess, I felt some respect for Mr. McVeigh when he decided not to pursue endless appeals and met his just punishment unrepentant, but with quiet courage, like the soldier he was.

Then, there are inevitable technicalities: what animal species would be most appropriate to rehabilitate Lenin? Hitler? The Rosenbergs? Osama bin Laden? To make matters worse, the lady also happens to be a defender of animal rights. I know I wouldn't want to spend my life in the company of one of those characters. Wouldn't the curative bonding she is advocating be cruel to the poor creatures she wants to use as if they were inanimate tools rather than live, feeling beings not that different from us?

If the penal theory of my liberal friend is correct, the choice of species must be critical for the success of the procedure. Take Arabs, for instance. They've been bonding with their camels ever since Abraham sent Hagar packing. People more familiar with Arab customs than I am, tell me that an Arab is often closer to his camels than to any human member of his family. No one has ever heard of an Arab murdering a camel, while “honor” killings of female relatives are more common among them than diarrhea. Those people have also mentioned that, due to the strict morals that preclude them from bonding with females of their own species, your average Arab isn't above bonding with his sheep, goats, donkeys and other domestic animals. And yet, contrary to all liberal expectations, murder of the defenseless remains their favorite pastime. Logically speaking, this means that either bonding doesn't work at all or we should try a different species to cure the murderous tendencies of the Arabs. I would suggest bonding them experimentally with poisonous snakes or hungry alligators. Bonding with the Ebola virus might do the trick, but I am unsure if viruses qualify as animals. Do viruses have rights?

Furthermore, if animals can cure, they must be able to harm. I was about to blame jihad on camels, because most people that raise camels are Muslims, and that may not be just a coincidence. Mongols are an exception of course, but then, maybe Mongols merely use their camels as cattle, instead of bonding with them like Arabs do?

I promise you, I haven't invented the liberal idiot. Oh, pardon me, the useful idiot. V. I. Lenin, despite being a mass murderer, was a terribly witty man. He described liberals as “useful idiots”. Useful to the cause they thought they opposed and idiots because they were so easily manipulated into supporting it.

Hurting the cause they think they are promoting is actually the defining characteristic of any liberal movement. And they always pick the noblest causes.

Thus, they declared a war on poverty and won. Their victory culminated in the establishment of the welfare system. The welfare system resulted in producing generations of people, who never worked or went to school. Most of them and their descendants will never work or go to school either, but will instead procreate like Arabs, because the more children they spawn the more money the government will pay them, so that they may forever remain undesirable outsiders to our society.

They started a crusade for women's rights and won. Their victory gave women a precious opportunity to work just like men or, often, harder. Coincidentally, it now takes two breadwinners to maintain the lifestyle for a family that a man used to be able to support by himself. It means that, thanks to women's lib, corporations can now hire two workers for the price of one. And yet, women haven't achieved full equality, since pregnancy, despite all liberal efforts, still remains their exclusive prerogative, and most of them have to be in charge not just at work, but at home as well, whether their husbands choose to acknowledge the fact or not.

They fought for racial equality and ended up legislating racism into our system by instituting affirmative action that automatically makes the credentials of every Black professional questionable and ensures that the enmity between races will never die. Once, I saw a poster proudly displayed in the lobby of a company that employed hundreds of people. The poster featured a photograph of a Black man in a business suit and a caption that read “The Black Achiever of the Month.” Do you think a non-liberal would ever come up with such a politically correct racial insult?

When Rudy Guiliani ran for mayor of New York City against David Dinkins, Jewish liberals accused Mr. Guiliani of anti-Semitism. They compared him to Hitler. Even worse, resorting to ethnic slurs, which, in my opinion, is especially unforgivable for Jews, they compared him to Mussolini. The friend of Jews, Dinkins won and subsequently, with Olympic serenity, presided over a sharp rise of crime in the city that included anti-Korean riots and a Jewish pogrom in Crown Heights. Yankel Rosenbaum, a visiting Torah scholar from Australia, was stubbed during the pogrom. He was rushed to the hospital. Mayor Dinkins also rushed to the hospital, and Mr. Rosenbaum spent his first forty minutes there posing for pictures with the philo-Semitic mayor. Soon afterwards, he died of the internal bleeding that the doctors could not diagnose in time to save him, probably, because precious time was wasted on the photo-op. All this, despite the fact that His Liberal Honor Mr. Dinkins felt nothing but the sincerest sympathy for Mr. Rosenbaum.

That's why I am so wary when liberals proclaim themselves supporters of Israel. Theirs is a terribly weak claim, by the way. Convincing the world that an Arab terrorist organization specifically created for the purpose of Israel's destruction is actually a “people” would be impossible without Jewish liberals who enthusiastically supported this particular anti-Semitic libel. Jewish liberals devised, implemented, and vigorously promoted the suicidal treachery of the Oslo accords. It's not quite coincidental that every single member of the Peace Now movement, from its inception to this day, is a Jewish liberal. There were no anti-Semites behind the recent shameful anti-Israel circus in Geneva; Jewish liberals, those cuddly doves, concocted it all. The idea of achieving peace for Israel by means of surrender to Arabs belongs exclusively to Jewish liberals. When people who really care about Israel ask, “With friends like that, who needs enemies?” they mean Jewish liberals.

All Jewish American liberals are going to vote for Kerry in November, even though most American Muslims are going to vote for him as well, and we know they would never vote for a friend of Israel. But this year their votes don't matter, since Kerry has no better chance of winning than I do, and I am not even running this time. But in 2008, all those friends of Israel will vote, also along with the majority of American Muslims, for Hillary Clinton who was the first American of any importance to announce support for the “Palestinian” state; the same Hillary Clinton who kissed Suha Arafat after she accused Israel of poisoning “Palestinian” wells.

I am a simple, straightforward person. I would rather deal with Neturei Karta or, better even, storm troopers. At least they don't claim to be on my side.

Sincerely and patiently, I tried to explain my point of view to my animal-bonding Jewish liberal friend, when she abruptly invited me to make love to her. Although the invitation was rather terse, just two short words, at first I thought it was a sign of affection. But then I realized that she was merely using the ultimate expression of human love to convey her hatred for me and my views.

Those tricky Jewish liberals, they will always pretend to love you before striking you like the poisonous snakes they are.

This article above is presented as a public service.It may be reproduced without charge, with attribution. To read my other articles or to make a donation,please visithttp://www.middleeastfacts.com/yashiko/ To be added to or removed from my mailing list,please contact me Адрес электронной почты защищен от спам-ботов. Для просмотра адреса в вашем браузере должен быть включен Javascript. © 2002—2004 Yashiko Sagamori. All rights reserved. October 1, 2004

Unsubscribe: http://www.ymlp.com/u.php?Адрес электронной почты защищен от спам-ботов. Для просмотра адреса в вашем браузере должен быть включен Javascript.

Hosting by YourMailingListProvider

Russian version